New and Improved Victory Types (ideas)

Some other threads have alluded to improving the number and quality of victories in Civ 4, to encourage players to choose a distinct path to victory. In Civ 3, people either constantly went down the same path (Domination), or they took a path that would let them do all of the above easily (Expansion as a means to cultural, space, domination victories…). Only when people desired a challenge would they “corner” themselves into one victory type (diplomatic victory, cultural victory with a small state). Nobody ever “cornered” themselves into a domination victory.

I propose new victory types, as well as making all the old victory types *easier*, but with more exclusivity.


CULTURAL VICTORY ++

This is what happens when your civilization’s culture is renown all over the world. Your culture could be as old as the Oracle, as hot as Hollywood, or as subliminal as everyone speaking English. The major difference I propose is more cultural bonuses for trade. If something you produce has a cultural value, be it furs or films, you gain culture points just for trading it abroad (in addition to the usual gold-gains). Culture has a snowball effect, the more you have, the more other civilizations want. Eventually, you can even get to the point where unhappy citizens explicitly say “I yearn for Spanish video games” – and that Civilization’s leader may have to buy into your cultural monopoly.

The catch with this victory is there is a slight advantage to peace. If you’re at war, that’s one less nation who will buy your beads. If you’re hated, the only people who will love your culture will be within your own borders, making it hard to claim you’re the epicentre that the rest of the world wants to visit.


DOMINATION VICTORY ++

I’ve talked about it in other threads: domination should be made faster and easier, with less micromanagement. A great way to do this is through provinces, which will surrender in clumps given that you strike the heart of that province. You should be able to deal with a nation and make it surrender as a vassal, a colony, or part of the heart of your territory. The more controversial thing that some people will disagree with is that civil war and post-colonialism should be something that pushes your quest to domination off sooner or later. This makes domination more like scoring a touchdown than running a race – you’ll get multiple chances to score a touch down, but you might get to the 20 yard line 3 times before you actually score. To me that’s more competitive that being able to get so far ahead that nobody else can win – making for a better multiplayer, and even single player.

Again, this is a controversial one, so I expect the most argument to be about this victory. Even more controversial would be if you score a single domination “point” for having an empire at a point in history (which is eventually pushed back down to everyone else’s level). He with the most points at the end wins.


HISTORICAL VICTORY

Think of this as being the centre of attention – everyone wants to talk about you. There are two keys to having a historical victory.

A: Lots of stuff happens to you
B: The winners write the history

Compare this to a game like Tony Hawk Skateboarding, where “A” is performing all the crazy tricks, and “B” is actually landing it. “A” is two spearmen in Mexico fighting off Spain’s conquistadors, and “B” is actually winning, through a combination of strategy and luck. It’s an incentive for people to take risks, to go out and do something, instead of biding their time… start a war early on, be a man.

This is also an incentive for altruistic behaviour. This happens a lot in the real world, but not in Civ. Why? Because we have a time-limit and a decisive winner A historical victory could be the reason that England liberates France instead of keeping it for themselves. The man who clinches 1000 history points is the winner, so everyone’s trying to showboat. Imagine saying “those altruistic bastards, they’re gonna win the game if they keep doing that!”


ECONOMIC VICTORY

To pull this off, Civ would obviously need to overhaul the way trade works. “Trade Embargos” are useless, since you can make all your money without a single friend. But if they really implemented it right, there could be a lot more strategy, knowing that you need to have those trade partners to be the best. All of the sudden, a trade embargo is a great way to thwart someone stealing your business. Ultimately, you could have an economic victory if other people are hiding their money in your banks, or if you have more corporate offices, but that’s pretty far outside Civ’s scope. A more manageable step would be a nation making their money off anything, from oil to horses, or even weapons and drugs (legal or illegal).

Here, too, would be an incentive for peace. Obviously war is profitable, as well as possessing colonies and vassals supplying you with their oil. But you still need to keep those trade partners happy, and you can’t do that if they can’t trust you. Plus this is how wars get started – Japan was dying to get into main land China for a lot of economic reasons. An economic victory would add a whole new dimension to the game, forcing people to think about how to stop that peaceful but rich little nation… and violence is still an answer


UTOPIAN VICTORY

This type of victory is really just a title, because I haven’t really thought it through… plus it depends a lot on some intricacies of the game, with the only shining light of hope being the introduction of Civics. But the idea is you’d have to be a decent sized (not necessarily empire sized) nation of multiple ethnicities and cultures with complete and total happiness. Your nation would need to be free, yet given that freedom your people always do the right thing – they’re highly educated and highly compassionate. I sincerely don’t know how this would or could work, as it probably relies on complexities that we won’t see in Civ 4. But I’m planting the seed to build enthusiasm for the idea.


CONCLUSION

All the new and improved victory types are certainly helped by more intricate concepts. But even keeping them simple, just having these new dimensions makes competition a lot trickier, and a lot more fun! … Especially if you get a warning when someone is very close to winning. “Cuba is close to a utopian victory…” … “Rome is close to a domination victory” … “USA is close to an economic victory” … prompting action, as someone tries to delay the end game to their benefit.

Seems like historical victory already exists in a way. Whoever has the most points in the end of the game wins if nobody won another way.

Dr. Broom said:

Seems like historical victory already exists in a way. Whoever has the most points in the end of the game wins if nobody won another way.

Click to expand...

Point taken. But I think it should be driven more by actual events, really cool stuff that makes for history books, instead of counting up the number of happy citizens and improvements. If you had one great war, even if you're not the most dominant in 2000, that's something the history books will never forget.

Good ideas! :greatjob:
Especially the utopian

On trade embargoes, as time goes buy, you should automatically make some money from small business with other civs. As you enter the modern and industrial ages, that money gets quite high. Trade embargoes should cut off that money, but give you your own money, although you lose the money of several other civs. I guess that the more money a civ has, the more "free money" goes to other civs each turn. So, you should be able to get what you want by threatening other civs with embargoes. Sounds like the real world. Of course, this sounds too easy for "milkers," but they should make it so that this is not so easy. How about for economic victory, once you control x% of the world's money, and have over x amount (so other civs spending their money in the AA doesn't push you over), you win.

Being that my UET is economic in nature, I would of course like to see an economic victory. This is difficult, however, since it is usually pretty difficult to "measure" economies. The simplest way could be to say whoever has x% of the world's money supply wins (similar to Gogf's suggestion). In reality, however, economies tend to be volatile (a fact that is never reflected in Civ's economics ), so whoever has the most money at a certain time is largely irrelevant if that money is not to be used wisely. I prefer an economic victory based on a civ controlling x% of the global market for a particular commodity or type of commodity (for example, "US has won an economic victory due to Exxon-Mobil and Microsoft dominating the world oil and computer platform markets"). Unfortunately, current Civ economics is so primitive that this could not be possible, unless the UET or some other commodity-based economic system were implemented.

Vizurok said:

Good ideas! :greatjob:
Especially the utopian

Click to expand...

Nah, they should keep civ in realistic things that have actually occured, not rather unrealistic ideas of a next-to-impossible utopian society.

wait, people have achived a conquest victory over the world??? when did this happen??
for that matter, how bout domination victory, or wonder victory, or space race victory (yes i know we can get into space, but we still cant get to alpha centauri)

IMO, there's a problem with your Domination and perhaps a related one with your Histographic idea - Yeah, doing well in the past is great and all, but who cares? What impact does the Empire of Rome have on the world today? That's right, none.

So what if Rome held possession of the entire "civilized world" for a few hundred years - fact is that they don't any more. If you can't make your achievements last, it doesn't matter. Just because everyone knows Rome's name and its past doesn't make it the ultimate "victorious empire" of all time.

A few things:

ECONOMIC VICTORY (and the UET)

On economics... I figure we can't expect a perfectly accurate model of economics in Civ without confounding the interface to the point of pain, and as such the economic victory will be inherently divorced from reality. But you could still have a pretty good introduction to economics.

UTOPIAN VICTORY (CenturionV, mtgfreak)

On "utopian" victory. First off, absolute domination never happened in reality, but there's still a domination victory. Secondly, Civ 3's domination is not absolute. Hence, a utopian victory need not either be realistic nor absolute. What I'm trying to say, you can have a utopian victory without an actual utopia -- just a country that is a shining example of freedom, human rights, and prosperity. And if you're uncomfortable with that, just don't call it "utopian" -- call it "prosperity victory" or something.

DOMINATION VICTORY (Trip)

And finally, to Trip... on domination... I don't think that historical Rome would be considered a domination victory. But a little bit more than that could have. It all depends on what it is that you want in a domination victory. If you want realism, absolute domination for millenia is less realistic than awarding a victory for having a vastly successful conquest (which will inevitably crumble due to civil war). Otherwise, you're of the type that believes domination has to happen gradually over centuries, and only ultimately possible in the 1980s.

HISTORICAL VICTORY (an example)

Historical victory wouldn't just be points for winning -- stability might actually be bad. Civil war would actually be helpful towards this victory. America gains a lot in history books from its Civil War, after all... and plus they overcame it and re-unified. So if we judge them by "Civilization Victory", they had their cake and ate it too.

I like the utopian victory setting. Every city must have every cultural improvment and very low pollution. And EVERY SINGLE FACE must be ****in smiling, goddamn it!

What about a
RELIGION VICTORY

Let each Civ start with a unique Religion and make it possible to spread the word across the land. Starting with your first cities where everyone has this religion. When you meet your neighbor there will be a chance that your or your neighbors citizens become followers of the other religion. (depending on *religion points* / culture points). You win the game when 2/3 or 1/2 of the worlds citizens believe in your religion. You can got out and conquer by word or sword.... using misionaries or crusaders.....

Trip said:

IMO, there's a problem with your Domination and perhaps a related one with your Histographic idea - Yeah, doing well in the past is great and all, but who cares? What impact does the Empire of Rome have on the world today? That's right, none.

Click to expand...

i just had to point this out the Ancient Romans had a mssive impact on today think if the Romans werent there england would have turned out very differently and may not have been the dominat country in 16th and 17th century and may not have gone and colinized america in which case The US would not have become the US which in turn would destablize the world so yes ancient rome has massive impacts on the world

anyways i like the idea of makeing more victory types and expanding the ones already there except the Religon one

Taé Shala said:

What about a
RELIGION VICTORY You can got out and conquer by word or sword.... using misionaries or crusaders.....

Click to expand...

I like this idea, it's almost like spreading culture, except you can't spread culture with a sword... The only thing I take issue with is each nation having its own unique religion. Can this really be done with any kind of realism? I guess everyone puts their own spin on it with their own "Book", let alone their own "High Priest". Could be doable, but my imagination fails me now.

Colonel said:

i just had to point this out the Ancient Romans had a mssive impact on today think if the Romans werent there england would have turned out very differently and may not have been the dominat country in 16th and 17th century and may not have gone and colinized america in which case The US would not have become the US which in turn would destablize the world so yes ancient rome has massive impacts on the world

anyways i like the idea of makeing more victory types and expanding the ones already there except the Religon one

Click to expand...

I made sure to phrase that carefully - what impact does the Empire of Rome have on the world today?

Fact is, it has none - it doesn't exist any more!

It's achievements in the past do have an effect today but there are no Roman governors, Roman senators, Roman generals, etc. which still hold sway over the world today. IMO, it's unacceptable to give a victory to Rome under those circumstances because their direct impact no longer exists in any form.

Still, Trip. What you're saying is confusing, because if that's the case, then nobody in history should be awarded victory.

Are you arguing that Rome was not successful enough conquest to warrant victory, but had they expanded just a bit further before collapsing you would have considered them dominant?

Or are you arguing that domination can only be measured up if they DON'T collapse?

If the prior, then that's what I'm arguing and how I'd like to see Civ develop -- a game where your progress is your own time limit, like football... you only have 10 yards to victory, but it's also the fourth down. If you miss this chance, you'll be on the defensive for another bit, and if you play right, you might get another chance at victory.

If the latter, then you're talking about the Civ 2 or Civ 3 domination victory. I argue this is less realistic than the prior. I also argue it is more tedious than the prior since it would be designed to be a late-game only victory, after gradual conquest... The new domination I'm talking about could happen much sooner, but only if you outrun those forces of sociological law -- outrun the very collapse of your empire.

dh_epic said:

Still, Trip. What you're saying is confusing, because if that's the case, then nobody in history should be awarded victory.

Click to expand...

And what's wrong with that?

The world is a constantly evolving place. Trying to tack "victory" on a real-world empire or event is impossible for just that reason. The only real conquest "victory" would be a complete and sustainable world conquest, which has never happened in our history and may never happen.

That having been said, I believe the current Civ condition for dominance is the best way to represent a dominant position in a Civ context. Fact is that the Civ engine doesn't allow for the ebbing and flowing which you have suggested elsewhere, and I don't see radical changes being forthcoming in Civ 4 to allow it (to the point where it can be usable for a domination victory of the sort you are suggesting).

Trip said:

That having been said, I believe the current Civ condition for dominance is the best way to represent a dominant position in a Civ context. Fact is that the Civ engine doesn't allow for the ebbing and flowing which you have suggested elsewhere, and I don't see radical changes being forthcoming in Civ 4 to allow it (to the point where it can be usable for a domination victory of the sort you are suggesting).

Click to expand...

Point taken. Still, it's not so much of a question of will they as a question of whether it solves problems people have identified in the previous game. I think it does. The micromanagement involved in taking city by city, the tedium of playing out a domination when you're the only one who COULD win...

Ebb and flow isn't actually that hard to implement, it's more a question of design and gameplay balancing. There are a few events (dark age, breakaway republic, colonial independance, civil war) that will not happen until your empire grows beyond a certain point. Once you pass that threshhold, the probability of said events happening sooner gets higher, and you can balance that with the rod or the carrot to your dissenting citizens (by threatening them or pleasing them).

Right on screen can be a meter / sign, not unlike pollution, that suggests to the user how soon their empire could hit a cataclysmic event. Advisors suggest which event looks most likely, so they can try to postpone them JUST LONG ENOUGH to complete their conquest. "The Spanish province you conquered 100 years ago is shouting for independence." ... "Our people are not breeding, sire, and our foreign population is carrying more sway."

It's really only a few formulas away.

Of course, conquest happens faster with surrenders, and taking chunks of land at a time instead of individual cities. Faster in terms of less micromanagement, and faster in terms of fewer turns.

I mean, perhaps England might be the closest thing to a domination victory, considering the amount of the world that speaks English. In that sense, England may have made its mark, and in the 19th century we could award them a domination / conquest / empire victory (something that doesn't necessarily imply "they will rule the world forever", but just that they raised the high bar high enough to be remembered as the best).

Ah well, I think I'm preaching to deaf ears Some people just like the idea, no matter how implausible or tedious, of destroying every last independant city on the planet, and having them willingly accept their ruler until the end of time.

just an idea i thought of for historical victory... and could be included in culture.

many geographical things make culture e.g. the british downs (some hills) are quite cultural. I dunno how itd work but something like a forest that has been in your teritory for x amount of years could start creating culture... Itd also make more scope far naming areas. Maybe certain mountains/ranges would make culture...

I like the idea of a historical victory. If it were based on some measure of 'fame'. Admittedly this is similar to the current points scoring, but if the bias were done differently to emphasize memorable actions and events it could make for a more dynamic scoring than the current which is biased by population growth.